Disclosing cancer genetic information within families: perspectives of counselees and their at-risk relatives

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]).

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention.

Innovation

Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review of theory-informed strategies used in interventions fostering family genetic risk communication

BACKGROUND

Inherited risk is a family issue. Identifying family members who carry a pathogenic genetic variant that increases risk of cancers and other chronic diseases can be lifesaving for those affected.

OBJECTIVE

The research questions are: (1) which family communication frameworks have been applied, (2) how do intervention strategies employed map to these theories, and (3) to what extent were families receptive to these strategies and communication increased?

METHODS

Manuscripts published between January 2010 and August 2020 were searched in three databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Nine intervention trials were identified. All interventions were evaluated in clinical genetic counseling contexts using at least one individual-level strategy (e.g. increase knowledge). Only three focused on dyadic conversations such as preparing for relatives' information needs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review posed the question whether theoretically based approaches have been applied to foster family genetic risk communication. Greater attention needs to be paid to the utilization of dyadic level and family system level theories to guide intervention developments.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

We conclude by calling for accelerating and broadening the development of interventions to enable family communication about inherited risk that are theory-based, incorporate family-systems thinking, and are conducted outside of specialty clinic settings.

Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden

Background

Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public's opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information.

Methods

A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson's chi-square (χ²) test.

Results

Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%).

Conclusions

In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.

Patient perspectives on molecular tumor profiling: "Why wouldn't you?"

Aim

This study explored the attitudes of patients with advanced cancer towards MTP and return of results, prior to undergoing genomic testing within a research program.

Methods

Participants were recruited as part of the longitudinal PiGeOn (Psychosocial Issues in Genomics in Oncology) study involving patients with advanced/metastatic solid cancer who had exhausted therapeutic options and who were offered MTP in order to identify cognate therapies. Twenty patients, selected by purposive sampling, were interviewed around the time they gave consent to MTP. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Themes identified in the transcripts were cross-validated via qualitative responses to the PiGeOn study survey (n = 569; 63%).

Results

All interviewed participants gave consent to MTP without reservation. Three themes were identified and further supported via the survey responses: (1) Obvious agreement to participate, primarily because of desire for new treatments and altruism. (2) The black box – while participant knowledge of genomics was generally poor, faith in their oncologists and the scientific process encouraged them to proceed with testing; and (3) Survival is the priority – receiving treatment to prolong life was the priority for all participants, and other issues such as identification of a germline variant were generally seen as ancillary.

Conclusion

Having advanced cancer seemed to abrogate any potential concerns about MTP. Participants valued the research for varied reasons, but this was secondary to their priority to survive. While no negative attitudes toward MTP emerged, limitations in understanding of genomics were evident.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5920-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions among Relatives of Women with Uninformative Negative BRCA1/2 Test Results: The Moderating Effect of the Amount of Shared Information

The most common result of BRCA1/2 mutation testing when performed in a family without a previously identified mutation is an uninformative negative test result. Women in these families may have an increased risk for breast cancer because of mutations in non-BRCA breast cancer predisposition genes, including moderate- or low-risk genes, or shared environmental factors. Genetic counselors often encourage counselees to share information with family members, however it is unclear how much information counselees share and the impact that shared information may have on accuracy of risk perception in family members. We evaluated 85 sisters and daughters of women who received uninformative negative BRCA1/2 results. We measured accuracy of risk perception using a latent variable model where accuracy was represented as the correlation between perceived risk (indicators = verbal and quantitative measures) and calculated risk (indicators = Claus and BRCAPRO). Participants who reported more information was shared with them by their sister or mother about her genetic counseling session had greater accuracy of risk perception (0.707, p = 0.000) than those who reported little information was shared (0.326, p = 0.003). However, counselees shared very little information; nearly 20 % of family members reported their sister or mother shared nothing with them about her genetic counseling. Family members were generally not aware of the existence of a genetic counseling summary letter. Our findings underscore the need for effective strategies that facilitate counselees to share information about their genetic counseling sessions. Such communication may help their relatives better understand their cancer risks and enhance risk appropriate cancer prevention.

Attitudes toward medical and genetic confidentiality in the Saudi research biobank: An exploratory survey

Achieving a balance between giving access to information and respecting donors' confidentiality is a crucial issue for any biobank, with its large number of samples and associated information. Despite the existence of much empirical literature on confidentiality, there are too few surveys in the Middle East about the topic, particularly in the Saudi context. A survey was conducted of 200 respondents at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, among 5 groups of equal size, comprised of researchers, physicians, medical students, donors and laypersons, respectively. The majority of participants agreed that confidentiality is an important issue and that it is well protected in the Saudi biobank. All 5 groups showed different attitudes toward disclosing information to various third parties. They were in favor of allowing treating physicians, and to a certain extent family members, to have access to medical and genetic results from research. No significant differences were found between views on medical and genetic confidentiality. The majority of respondents agreed that confidentiality might be breached in cases with specific justified reasons. Even considering differences in religion, culture and other factors, the results of the study were consistent with those reported in the literature and research conducted in other countries. We therefore place emphasis on the importance of protecting and promoting patient/donor confidentiality and privacy.

Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives

This observational study aimed to (i) compare the accuracy of information recalled by patients and relatives following genetic counselling about a newly identified BRCA1/2 mutation, (ii) identify differences in accuracy of information about genetics and hereditary cancer and (iii) investigate whether accuracy among relatives improved when information was provided directly by genetics health professionals. Semistructured interviews following results from consultations with 10 breast/ovarian cancer patients and 22 relatives were audio-recorded and transcribed. Information provided by the genetics health professional was tracked through the families and coded for accuracy. Accuracy was analysed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test. Sources of information were tested using Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient. Fifty-three percent of the information recalled by patients was accurate. Accuracy of recall among relatives was significantly lower than that among patients (P=0.017). Both groups recalled a lower proportion of information about hereditary cancer than about genetics (P=0.005). Relatives who learnt the information from the patient alone recalled significantly less accurate information than those informed directly by genetics health professionals (P=0.001). Following genetic counselling about a BRCA1/2 mutation, accuracy of recall was low among patients and relatives, particularly about hereditary cancer. Multiple sources of information, including direct contact with genetics health professionals, may improve the accuracy of information among relatives.

Families' experience of oncogenetic counselling: accounts from a heterogeneous hereditary cancer risk population

This paper reports the results of semi-structured family interviews conducted with a purposive sample of nine families (comprising 50 individuals) involved in cancer genetic counselling at a Portuguese public hospital. Qualitative analysis resulted in thematic categories illustrating: (1) how families go through cancer genetic counselling (eliciting risk awareness, the motivators, risk management, the psychosocial context of familial engagement in genetic counselling, and the familial pathways of cancer risk tracking); and (2) how families incorporate genetic risk into family life (strategies for family resilience, and the meanings and values that permeate the experience). Families have recognised the value of genetic counselling in enabling participants to take measures to confront disease risk; however, the experience was dominated by distressing feelings. A set of ethical-relational principles guided the experience. Familial experiences on genetic counselling and tracking of cancer susceptibility encompass a sense of trajectory that takes the form of an historical and intergenerational narrative process, linking past, present and possible futures. Such process implies an ongoing set of individual and interactional experiences taking place over time. Specific changes associated with the illness timeline and with individual and family developmental lifespan transitions are thus acknowledged. These results may help genetics healthcare practitioners understand how families perceive, respond to and accommodate cancer risk counselling, and thus illuminate family-oriented tenets for planning and practice.

Incidence and predictors of positive and negative effects of BRCA1/2 genetic testing on familial relationships: a 3-year follow-up study

PURPOSE

Little is known about the long-term impact of BRCA1/2 testing on the relationships between family members. We assessed the incidence of positive and negative family relationship effects of BRCA1/2 testing in the 3 years after result disclosure and identified predictors of these effects.

METHODS

A total of 485 women and 67 men who had undergone BRCA1/2 testing were asked 3 years later whether having been tested had improved and/or disrupted relationships with their relatives. The associations with sociodemographic, medical, and psychosocial characteristics were assessed.

RESULTS

Globally, 85.1% did not report any positive or negative effects of genetic testing on family relationships. Positive and negative effects were reported by 13.2% and 3.7% of participants, respectively. Reporting positive relationship effects was associated with older age, intolerance for uncertainty, cancer-specific distress, and more social support. Low education, positive attitude toward prophylactic mastectomy, and low social support increased the likelihood of negative effects.

CONCLUSION

Our findings do not support the belief that family relationships are frequently disrupted by BRCA1/2 testing. Understanding that most family relationships are unchanged long term by genetic testing may help genetic service providers encourage those considering testing to overcome hesitancy related to potential difficulties of communicating results to relatives.

A UK collaborative 1-day pilot information and support forum facilitated by a national breast cancer charity and NHS cancer genetic counsellors, for women at high risk, BRCA 1/2 gene carriers and hereditary breast cancer

Since the identification of the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA 1/2, genetic assessments of individuals and their families has greatly increased. The assessment of an individual as being at high risk, a gene carrier or an inheritor of cancer changes that individual's life. There is then a great need for ongoing information and support, not only from healthcare professionals but from peers - other women in the same situation. Breast Cancer Care is aware of this need; for a number of years, we have been providing published information, online-based information and support and telephone support to women who are BRCA 1/2 gene carriers and women with hereditary breast cancer. As part of our continuing commitment to improve on and develop other information and support services to this target group, we collaborated with a number of Genetic Counsellors from London, Oxford, Cambridge and Southampton to develop and pilot a 1-day support forum. This article discusses the factors that led to the pilot information and support forum, its development and how it was evaluated, and suggests a potential way forward.